Eco-activists defiled Charles Darwin’s grave: nature conservation or vandalism?

The scale of environmental problems is rapidly growing! And now, thanks to meta-research by scientists around the world, it has become possible to analyze a huge array of data, combine them, and see the overall picture of global ecocide. Everything is indeed very, very bad!

But in reality, no one is listening to the scientists. Including today, international nature conservation organizations find themselves in the midst of the harshest stagnation and a clear decline in activity. I previously published a post with statistics on the “giants” in the field of nature protection: over the past few years, the engagement of their audiences has collapsed to almost zero.

Here’s the paradox! There are more and more environmental problems, yet the real interest of society in them continues to fall. Moreover, the pace of “adaptation” is increasing: people literally get used to the fact that new deadly diseases (like “plasticosis”) have appeared, abnormal heat waves have intensified, or even the largest rivers have completely dried up.

Social networks are now adjusting search algorithms according to the “recommendation feed.” This is when a person doesn’t even need to subscribe — they’re simply given an endless feed of precisely the things they like. The information is collected by neural network algorithms; they also take into account the things the user doesn’t like in order to exclude them from further displays!

Thus, questions of nature conservation are excluded almost completely. They just don’t remain!

And this absolutely needs to be tackled somehow. We are now, for example, preparing a complete reform of our nature conservation projects — I think in 2025, if everything works out, we’ll announce a major launch. The main goal is to try to attract the attention of millions of people worldwide to our struggle, and then redirect that attention to specific real steps to protect Earth’s biosphere.

As much as we might wish otherwise, we’ll have to conduct a long media campaign with a focus on massive coverage. And it’s physically impossible to do this without creating a “spectacle” for people. Otherwise, we simply drop out of the search algorithms, and nature conservation, ecological projects, and attempts to change the world for the better become completely unnecessary to anyone.

We have solid analytics on how the “giants” have “collapsed.” We also have data on the situation with the nature conservation movement worldwide. Plus, there’s an understanding of how quickly approaches to social networks are changing, as they actively introduce neural network algorithms based on artificial intelligence.

The destruction of nature is often a slow process, lasting for years, with a gradual degradation of ecosystems. There’s no “spectacle” there! It’s one thing when there’s a single instance of petroleum pollution in Anapa, where a tanker accident and the visible part of the ecological disaster shock people. There they are, birds in oil, black shores. But when for years millions of tons of pesticides are poured from the agricultural fields of southern regions of Russia, which then flow into water horizons via surface waters, seep into the soil, killing all biological systems — from terrestrial to riverine and then marine — no one notices.

Why?

Because there is no spectacle. Only a slow and destructive degradation, the extinction of species, with consequences that are incomparable to a one-time spill of petroleum products in the Black Sea.

And naturally, we need to tackle all environmental problems — both the visible disasters and those hidden from our eyes. But now we’re talking specifically about the fact that the destruction of nature is often a slow process, and therefore people aren’t interested! This means that the most destructive areas, requiring urgent measures, remain unnoticed.

They don’t get into search algorithms, aren’t covered by the media, aren’t discussed by people. I, for instance, still hear from people every time about the extinction of 73% of all living species on the planet: “You’re lying, we searched and couldn’t find this data! It’s fake!”

They really write that, en masse! And, apparently, they do look for the information somewhere.

But this is an international study conducted by a huge group of scientists from different countries around the world! It’s not just local observations; it’s meta-research, and data were collected by hundreds of specialists in all corners of the planet.

And yet, every time, again and again, in a cycle, we have to update the information, otherwise people forget it very quickly!

The question is even more pressing because people struggle to grasp numbers. Publications about the extinction of 73% of all living species on the planet gain dozens of times fewer engagements than, say, a post about a poacher who shot one bear or deer. Somehow it turns out that a dead bear is “understandable” and evokes emotions, anger, and a demand for justice! But the destruction of almost all animals on the planet, the need to urgently stand up to defend the remaining 27% of living species — that’s ignored.

And this can be solved! There are real methods of protection, specific proposals on how to resolve global conflicts. It’s just that it requires the support of society, a huge number of people. But we don’t have it.

These are just thoughts out loud!

Today everything is shifting toward “recommendation feeds,” when even social networks begin to literally destroy all content that doesn’t interest people. And if someone scrolls past a post, say, about the importance of nature conservation, doesn’t read it, or simply leaves a cursory “like,” that publication won’t reach those who really need to see it. It’ll be knocked out of the search algorithms!

As a result, all subsequent posts in defense of nature will also decrease in engagement. And frankly, the reason is precisely that people don’t want to see it! And the search algorithms adapt to the content that “works.”

ENVIRONMENTAL VANDALISM

I personally don’t like the methods of “environmental vandalism” at all. I believe it’s foolishness that sows chaos and fragmentation, further fueling the confrontation between nature defenders and society. If eco-activists begin to damage paintings in galleries, break or destroy things — this inevitably discredits the entire movement of nature conservation worldwide!

Our project, which we are currently preparing, will be a counterbalance. I want to show another way! Simply put: if you want to draw society’s attention to environmental problems, why not do something grand instead of resorting to destruction and chaos?

Conquer mountain peaks, the depths of the oceans, push human limits in extreme conditions! Show strength, courage, become a worthy role model that others will follow, rather than running into galleries to splash paint on another historical painting and catch momentary “hype.”

How will our children remember us? 

“Weirdos” who sowed chaos just to get attention?

What will our people, readers, supporters say about us? 

“They’re crazy psychos, totally nuts.”

In recent years, major nature conservation organizations have begun to stagnate and are now confidently “crumbling.” Eco-activist groups have also seen a sharp drop in their audience and, in order to at least somehow keep the focus on their activities, have begun staging “actions” en masse.

I want to vividly describe them to you so you understand what I’m talking about.

• On February 15, 2025, a group of activists glued themselves to the frame of Leonardo da Vinci’s “Mona Lisa,” demanding stronger measures to combat climate change.

  
  

  By the way, this painting was already the center of attention: in January 2024, in Paris, activists from the public organization “Food Response” poured soup on the “Mona Lisa.” At that time, two women participated, calling on people to focus not on art but on healthy and eco-friendly eating.

  
  

• On February 13, 2025, environmental activists in London desecrated Charles Darwin’s grave. Two women (one aged 66 and the other 77) from the Just Stop movement took orange powder paint and wrote “1.5 Degrees Dead” on the tombstone in Westminster Abbey.

  
  

• After that, the movement’s website published the phrase: “Charles Darwin would be turning in his grave if he knew we are in the midst of the sixth mass extinction.”

  
  

• On January 10, 2025, eco-activists poured paint on several cars at the Geneva Motor Show, protesting against the production of vehicles with high emissions.

  
  

• On December 5, 2024, at the British Museum, activists glued themselves to exhibits, demanding an end to the museum’s funding by oil companies.

  
  

• On August 30, 2024, at the Prado Museum, a group of activists glued themselves to a painting by Francisco Goya, protesting against the authorities’ inaction on climate change.

  
  
• On June 10, 2024, at the Metropolitan Museum, activists poured red paint on a sculpture, symbolizing the bloodshed caused by environmental disasters.

These are only some of the events; in reality, there are already hundreds! This is the approach now taken by almost all “environmental movements” — attracting attention to their activities through scandals.

Studying the history of many movements that “speak” about problems in this way, I haven’t found real proposals for combating the destruction of nature. As a rule, everything is limited to slogans like “Don’t extract oil” or “At least do something.”

And today such “actions” have become part of the competition among many organizations: whoever pulls more attention to themselves!

Does it solve environmental problems?

Naturally, no. Not at all. It doesn’t even work as advertising. On the contrary, I believe such actions cause even more irritation in society toward nature defenders, which affects the relevance of publications, including on truly important matters and steps to solve problems.

A person who might have supported nature conservation just yesterday, after reading about the “eco-activists’” vandalism, will spit in the direction of the entire movement of nature defenders.

Vandalism in any form is perceived by the majority of society as disrespect for culture and history, not as a fight for nature. This creates a negative image of environmental activists, causing genuinely important environmental initiatives to lose support.

The very idea of nature conservation becomes “radicalism” — chaotic movements of people with pronounced schizophrenia, instead of a scientific approach and the search for real solutions.

And even media coverage does not affect the essence of the problems. What do people discuss? They talk about the fact of vandalism, not about methods for solving the issues. No one says, “It’s serious, the Earth’s temperature has risen by 1.5 degrees! It’s time to act.”

No! Everyone says, “Green loonies messed up a painting again, and then they went to desecrate Charles Darwin’s grave! What morons…”

Meanwhile, the activists themselves spend their energy on provocations and scandals, rather than on effectively lobbying for necessary laws and undertaking environmental work.

But there is an even more negative impact!

There is an increase in the scale of repression against nature defenders in general: when vandalism grows, governments get a reason to toughen laws against any protests, expanding criminal prosecution. And in recent years, there’s already been active use of the label “eco-activist = extremist” — even in our country, Russia, officials have declared the need to “suppress green extremists.”

WHAT TO DO?

I understand that engagement is dropping, and society is increasingly less interested in protecting nature. Some people profit from it, some “cash in” on it, and only a few intentionally try to initiate truly correct directions — calling for solving problems rather than just talking about them.

I prepared this material for you so that you could assess the scale of what’s happening. It’s reached the point of absurdity, which discredits the entire field of nature conservation.

That is precisely why we’re now preparing a major media project. I really hope we can launch in 2025 — we’re looking for significant funding, otherwise we won’t manage it.

I want to show another path — where nature defenders are strong, confident people striving for achievements, lobbying the right laws on nature conservation, carrying out educational work with scientific facts rather than provocations.

At the center, as the foundation, must be the right ideology: nature is protected by strong individuals, relying on research, investigation, and personal self-improvement!

It must be a mission — the fight for Life.

© PAVEL PASHKOV